• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What happened to us?

Symmetrical_Argument said:
But Iraq was just a dictatorship with thugs loyal to Saddam & they'd probably be shot if they were loyal to anyone else like Al Queda.
Iraq is not the right place to fight a war on terror.

A "War on Terror" (I do not like the name, because it is too vague) has to start somewhere. It is not and has never been about chasing down single terrorists. The path to Middle Eastern reform had to start somewhere. Saddam's Iraq gave us our best place to start.

1) Iraq was secular as compared to the rest of the Middle East
2) Saddam's loss in the Middle East would not be something the rest of the Middle East would rally to fight to prevent.
3) Iraq's symptoms of failure were identical to the failures in surrounding Islamic countries.
4) Iraq is strategically placed in the Middle East.

Like it or not, Iraq is the best chance the Middle East has at reform. Saddam's fall was very symbolic to the Middle East. It scared the hell out of every tyrant and religious fanatic throughout the region. He was the number one offender of Islam and worst oppressor in the area....and we finally removed him. However, we did not think we could defeat the spread of Soviet communism by attacking Moscow, nor will defeat Radical Islam by attacking the Arab heartland. Iraq will not be the deciding factor. Our efforts need start on the fringes of Islam. We have to employ a tactic called "roll back." We have to counteract the Arab fundamental spending from Africa to Europe to Asia and even onto North America.


Symmetrical_Argument said:
I can only say that for a huge a huge Soviet army, Afganistan became their Vietnam, so what's different now ?

We are not trying to rule Iraqis. We merely toppled a thorn in our side and a ruthless dictator. We are currently supporting the vast majority in the security of their newly elected government. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is sophomoric. It's very Rambo.
 
Iriemon said:
Jeez you almost sound logical. I concur.

I always "sound" logical. You just don't like the manner of my boldness to project what we are facing.
 
POLITICAL JEDI said:
1. How did we get from ""Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them," "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism." to a place that lets hundreds of thousands march in the streets of a country we liberated, shouting: "Death to America" "Death to Israel"?

2. And can someone please tell me how we got to a place that allows Iran and Syria to fund and arm their client, terrorist group Hezbollah, and then have hezbollah attack democratic Israel with Katusha rockets without a response on Iran and Syria?

From the reports I've read, hezbollahs leader enjoys the shelter of the Iranian embassy while planning his next attack. Syria's Assad, and Iran's Ahmadinejad are enjoying comfort rather then bombardment.

3. If this is the best Bush has got in the "war on terror" then 3 more years in Iraq is a waste. It's a waste because the ideology of hate, wrapped up in religion, martyrdom, and fascism remains. This is what needs fighting. This is what must be brought to it's knees.

1. I am guessing you are talking about Iraq, since I have not seen anything on this yet. If so, what you are seeing in Iraq now is the result of a campaign of massive infiltration and violence. Not quite as violent, but Lebanon went through this as well, beseiged by Iran, finally enslaved and made into a puppet state. Remember the assassinations, and now Hezbolla is stronger than the lebonese National military! Iraq is on the burner now, Lebanon securely in Iran's pocket. I wouldn't doubt that 1/2 that crowd was either infiltrators or Iranian soldiers. Right now, Iraq is in a struggle with Iran and syria and the decision of whether they become the next 'Lebonese' puppet state hangs in the balance!
-- Also, the 'bad' thing about liberating and giving a people freedom is that they have a choice, whether we agree with it or not.

2. Easy:
A. The United Nations, the criminal and inept organization that it is, has served up lebanon and Israel to Iran, syria, Hamas, and hezbollah on a silver platter for more than 50 years! Moronic cease-fires that come by means of evil/traiterous resolutions like 1559, which was a scam - a facade, a LIE - that called for cease fire, tied Irsrael's hands so they could do nothing but sit back and watch as Iran and Syria enslaved Lebanon and turned it into an armed headuarters from which the heavily Iranian-funded/supplied/armed/manned Hezbollah terrorists organization launched attacks on Israel! daily flights of arms were seen coming in from Iran....and the U.N. OBSERVERS' hands were tied to do just that - do nothing but observe the military build-up and preparation for future war with Israel! After the pounding the Israelis have given hezbollah, this latest cease-fire is yet another death-blow/attack on Israel by the U.N., shackeling Israel's hands while allowing Hezbollah to re-build and re-arm for the NEXT onslaught/attack on Israel.
B. What I call the 'International Clinton Denial-ists'
-- Osama declared war on the U.S. back in the mid to late 90s then sent his 'army' of terrorists to stalk and kill us abroad: Kobar Towers, USS Cole, 2 African Embassies....all perpetrated without fear of repercussion! Clinton chose to deny/ignore Osama's declaration of war on the U.S. then looked at each attack that followed as an individual terrorists attack (which he ignored each time) instead of as all tied together as part of the Islamic Extremists' attack on the western world. This only emboldened the terrorists and brought them hunting us on our own soil!
--- Today's International Leaders, led by the Criminal Koffi Annan (who has his head shoved so far up his @$$ that he can't even bring himself to acknowledge that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, that they are armed, manned, and trained by Iranians - even when Hezbollah fighters are saying it, and will not acknowledge remarks by Iranian and Syrian leaders who publicly vow to totally destoy Israel and the U.S. - that this is their ultimate goal)..... Today's International Leaders, led by the Criminal Koffi Annan are suffering from the same thing. they look at each attack or bombing, in denial, and convince themselves that it is an isolated incident instead of part of this huge war the Islamic Extremists, lead by Iran, are waging! They ignore the attacks, the suicide bombings, the rocket attacks, and the kidnappings. they ignore Hezbollah kidnapping women and children to use as human shields, ignore them putting weapons in heavily populated areas - hoping for civilians deaths to use against Israel in the propoganda war. Instead, the U.N. seeks to blame Israel, the victim, and demand they use some ridiculous measure of restraint that no other country in the world, especially the major powers, would ever consider were the shoe on the other foot!

Flashback: WW2. Hitler wrote in Mein Kumpf (sorry - spelling) that he was not ready to take military action when he moved his Army into the Rhine Land, the buffer zone set up at the end of WW1. He said if the french would have voiced or shown any backbone and resisted, he would have pulled out immediately. He said he took France's reaction of giving in to Hitler's move as wakness and a sign that France would put up no resistance for its own survival, that they would rather roll over and be taken rather than fight.

At the end of WW2, instead of putting the map back the way it ws pre-war, leaders backed down and sought to appease russia, giving away countries who were sovereign pre-war, countries that were not theirs to divy up like so many cards. The U.N. is doing both of these things now! They are divying up the Middle east - refusing to go in to Iraq to help establish and defend the new goverment (which is their responsibility as defined in their charter), allowing iran to enslave lebanon without so much as a voiced complaint, and allowing the continuous attacks on Israel for the lat 58+ years and counting....all to appease the evil in the world....rolling over as france did in WW2. They hope this is not the war (possibly WW3) their ees tell them is happening without them doing one finger to prevent it. They are hoping it all goes away, like Clinton did after the kobar towers, the USS Cole.....


3. 'If that is all Bush has'..... Dude, you are barking up the wrong tree. We were told by the U.N. - the world's protector' - not to go into Iraq and oppose a dictator who was raping, torturing, and murdering thousands - maybe millions - of his own people. We did anyway and are still fighting the good fight. Where is the U.N.? After hezbollah attacked Israel, bush stayed out of it 1) so that America would not be directly involved which would bring in Anti-American sentiment. As a result, many arab nations actually defended israel at 1st and rebuked Iran and Syria openly. I'd say that is/was a smart move. 2) He also stayed out of it and delayed any weak-@$$ed U.N. cease fire to give Israel an opportunity to do the U.N.'s job - enforcing Resolution 1559 from 2001!

While the Dems are screaming 'we can't win', 'we are the enemy', 'there is no wat on terror', and 'we should all stop fighting and appease the enemy/encourage tolerance to/with an enemy that has no tolerance but only wants to kill us all, Bush has fought the good fight and continues to do so.

What the world needs right now is fopr all the world leaders, especially those with western-style democracies, to wake the F*@& up and see what is going on....and join the fight! The U.s. can't do it all, pal, and the rest of the worl would rather lay their necks on the chopping block and pretend it ain't happening while Osama is bringing his knife closer to their throats while the Al jazeera TV Cameras role!
 
GySgt said:
A "War on Terror" (I do not like the name, because it is too vague) has to start somewhere. It is not and has never been about chasing down single terrorists. The path to Middle Eastern reform had to start somewhere. Saddam's Iraq gave us our best place to start.

1) Iraq was secular as compared to the rest of the Middle East
2) Saddam's loss in the Middle East would not be something the rest of the Middle East would rally to fight to prevent.
3) Iraq's symptoms of failure were identical to the failures in surrounding Islamic countries.
4) Iraq is strategically placed in the Middle East.

Like it or not, Iraq is the best chance the Middle East has at reform. Saddam's fall was very symbolic to the Middle East. It scared the hell out of every tyrant and religious fanatic throughout the region. He was the number one offender of Islam and worst oppressor in the area....and we finally removed him. However, we did not think we could defeat the spread of Soviet communism by attacking Moscow, nor will defeat Radical Islam by attacking the Arab heartland. Iraq will not be the deciding factor. Our efforts need start on the fringes of Islam. We have to employ a tactic called "roll back." We have to counteract the Arab fundamental spending from Africa to Europe to Asia and even onto North America.

We are not trying to rule Iraqis. We merely toppled a thorn in our side and a ruthless dictator. We are currently supporting the vast majority in the security of their newly elected government. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is sophomoric. It's very Rambo.

Oh no, not 'sophomoric' again. It could be argued that people that need to resort to the word sophomoric all the time are sophomoric themselves :roll:

1) Iraq is riddled with religion.
3)I don't think rich countries like Suidi, Egypt, Lebanon, the gulf states etc are that similiar to Iraq.
4) Now that may be the real reason you showed so much concern for liberating the people of Iraq from a dictator when you've spent so much time in the past installing them !

"It scared the hell out of every religious fanatic throughout the region."

I hadn't noticed. It seems to have made them hell bent on a fight.

The Muslim heartland is everywhere. Even in British mosques !
Indeed it is everywhere that there are people willing to surrender their ability to think freely by substituting religious gobbdly gook for the process of thought.
 
Hoot said:
I think this is part of the problem. Many of us believe the solutions to the Mid East do not lie on the battleground.

President Carter was a firm believer in diplomacy....and the military was weakened to the point where we became a JOKE to the rest of the world.

President Clinton was in office when Osama Bin laden declared war on the U.S. His response? Nothing. he was one of many who believed in tolerance and that we could all have a group hug and work things out. Al Qaeda then set out in conducting its war on America - Kobar Towers, USS Cole, 2 African Embassy bombings.....and each time Clinton refused to do anything in the form of a military response. The result? The terrorists were emboldened, taking Clinton's reluctance/refusal to use force to defend our nation as weakness.

Whether 'many of you' want to believe it or not, there are those out there who do not thinkthe way we do, and they weigh heavily the importance of Strength! They respect power and strength, and they hate/despise those who appear weak...attacking them more!

The cold war was not won by diplomacy but a strong show of force and a refusal to back down. Al Qaeda was emboldened by Clinton's 'weakness' in refusing to defend America militarily....and they came HERE to kill us as a result!

Just how do you negotiate with a group who does not believe in tolerance, as we do, and believes that everyone in the world should be Muslims, Muslim converts, or DEAD?

Israel has been bombed and attacked for over 58 YEARS! After each suicide bombing, every rocket attack, and every kidnapping, the pathetic U.N. berates the VICTIM and demands that they use an unrealistic amount of restraint (knowing full well that none of the super powers would agree to do so if the shoe was on the other foot), believing that diplomacy will win out. Well, after 58+ friggin' years of diplomacy, Israel gets to go back across their borders, wait for the next suicide bombing, wait for the next rocket attack, wait for the next kidnapping...and oh by the way, they don't get their kidnapped soldiers back! The diplomacy and the U.N.'s latest resolution did not address the 2 kidnapped soldiers, did not demand Hezbollah give them back. As a result, Israel was contacted by Hezbollah yesterday with a demand to trade Israel's soldiers back for the return of Hezbollah terrorists who have attacked Israel in the past - 2 soldiers for around 50-100 terrorists, terrorists who will return to Hezbollah, rejoin the ranks, and start attacking Israel again before long!

This nation's freedom was neither won nor has been kept by diplomacy! Our sovereignty and freedom was won and has been defended by men and women willing to fight and die for their country!

And if the rest of the 'many of you' realize that not everyone in the world is going to sit down at the diplomatic table and be won over by your visions of how the world should be as well as your flowery speeches and group hugs, the quicker you realize that there is evil in the world that can NOT be swayed by TALK, the better! I just hope it does not take another disasterous attack on this country, possibly on our own soil again, before you realize that there is a war going on right now for the world against an enemy that would love nothing better than to saw your head off on Al Jazeera TV before the whole Muslim world and that nothing short of force and/or their own deaths will prevent them from accomplishing that mission!
 
Symmetrical_Argument said:
Oh no, not 'sophomoric' again. It could be argued that people that need to resort to the word sophomoric all the time are sophomoric themselves :roll:

If you stop stooping to such sophomoric simple sentiments, then you might stop seeing the word "sophomoric." I see you responded to three of my four points. Here's a hint...if you have to pick apart the point to find the argument...then you may want to step back and re-evaluate your sentiment.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
1) Iraq is riddled with religion.

...your point is? Welcome to the Middle East. "Secular" was a word you brought up and labeled upon Iraq. I merely responded to it with further explanation. I referenced "Secular" to the running of the government as compared to the rest of the Middle East. In Iraq....it was all about Saddam's law...not Allah's law. That was secondary. But all that pent up frustration, rage, and passed down racism bent on revenge came right out after we removed their dictator. Say's something doesn't it? America has freed two countries of their oppressive and brutal sponsership, but the people are unable to sustain a peace without that tyranny as the rest of the world sits back and uselessly criticizes.

Culture is fate.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
3)I don't think rich countries like Suidi, Egypt, Lebanon, the gulf states etc are that similiar to Iraq.

Really?....

1) Restrictions on the free flow of information.
2) The subjugation of women.
3) Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4) The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5) Domination by a restrictive religion.
6) A low valuation of education.
7) Low prestige assigned to work.

Still desperately looking for ways to seperate Iraq from the entire Middle East? You better come more in depth than your next senseless point......

Symmetrical_Argument said:
4) Now that may be the real reason you showed so much concern for liberating the people of Iraq from a dictator when you've spent so much time in the past installing them !

See...this would be more of that sophomoric nonesense. Are you revealing some great revelation here? What is your point? Is your point to say that since we have supported dictators in the past for stability within regions that we have no business taking one out? Or is your point to say that because of America's actions to beat the Soviet influence during the Cold War, America should act like Europe and use any desperate means to exonerate ourselves from doing anything for anybody? Or is your quest to simply try to compare a short time period between WWII and the fall of the Berlin Wall to the historical attrocities committed by Europeans and thereby exonerating your continents actions?

Or is your point just to criticize for the sake of criticizing? Anything real to contribute at all?

Symmetrical_Argument said:
I hadn't noticed. It seems to have made them hell bent on a fight.

You haven't noticed, because you need to feel that you have been right and refuse yourself vision.

..."hell bent on a fight"....Which is their reaction to fear. Since Saddam went down, the Radical element has done everything possible to cling to their passed down traditions. They have pushed their societies further into failure and cling even tightly to their religious roots. Even Al-Queda has gone to desperate lengths to "prove" to the Muslim world that they are still a force to fear. They have gone from attacking legitimate military targets to the slothfullassassination of civilians - even their own Muslims. Change in the Middle East scares the hell out of our enemies and many of our critics. "Stability" in the Middle East has given the world (and our hypocritical and cowardly "allies" in Europe) their oil supply as it endangered American lives, because we are the ones that provided it. "Stability" has ensured that Radical Islam had a purpose and a struggle. Without this status quo "stability," our "allies" are scrambling and Islamic Radicals are desperate and lashing out. Islam as a mundane organizing tool is failing all over the world and unfamiliarity scares them.

This is basic religion 101 stuff here.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
The Muslim heartland is everywhere. Even in British mosques !
Indeed it is everywhere that there are people willing to surrender their ability to think freely by substituting religious gobbdly gook for the process of thought.

Well, that is a sweet sentiment....but I didn't say "Muslim" heartland. I said "Arab" heartland. The "Arab" heartland is the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. It is the birth place of Islam. If you are determined to discuss these things with me, at least try to keep up.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
If you stop stooping to such sophomoric simple sentiments, then you might stop seeing the word "sophomoric." I see you responded to three of my four points. Here's a hint...if you have to pick apart the point to find the argument...then you may want to step back and re-evaluate your sentiment.
What ?!
The easiest & most methodcal & orderly way to deal with points is separately & one at a time.

GySgt said:
...your point is? Welcome to the Middle East. "Secular" was a word you brought up and labeled upon Iraq. I merely responded to it with further explanation. I referenced "Secular" to the running of the government as compared to the rest of the Middle East. In Iraq....it was all about Saddam's law...not Allah's law. That was secondary. But all that pent up frustration, rage, and passed down racism bent on revenge came right out after we removed their dictator. Say's something doesn't it? America has freed two countries of their oppressive and brutal sponsership, but the people are unable to sustain a peace without that tyranny as the rest of the world sits back and uselessly criticizes.
Culture is fate.
I didn't say Iraq was secular. You did. I said it was riddled with religion.

GySgt said:
3) Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4) The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5) Domination by a restrictive religion.
6) A low valuation of education.
7) Low prestige assigned to work.

3) As per a typical US government failure to act on intelligence pre 911 & then accept is was not acted on.
4) What's wrong with that ?
5) Middle America ????
6) One of the latest liquid bomber terrorists being investigated is a brillaint maths lecturer. There are plenty of educated academic religious idiots. I know , I work with some of them. It's not education that is needed. It's less religion that's needed
7) There's plenty of that attitude in the west.

GySgt said:
Still desperately looking for ways to seperate Iraq from the entire Middle East?
Or is your point just to criticize for the sake of criticizing? Anything real to contribute at all?
Iraq was different under Saddam compared to other arab countries in the extreme degree of his dictatorship.
GySgt said:
..."hell bent on a fight"....Which is their reaction to fear. Since Saddam went down, the Radical element has done everything possible to cling to their passed down traditions. They have pushed their societies further into failure and cling even tightly to their religious roots. Even Al-Queda has gone to desperate lengths to "prove" to the Muslim world that they are still a force to fear. They have gone from attacking legitimate military targets to the slothfullassassination of civilians - even their own Muslims. Change in the Middle East scares the hell out of our enemies and many of our critics. "Stability" in the Middle East has given the world (and our hypocritical and cowardly "allies" in Europe) their oil supply as it endangered American lives, because we are the ones that provided it. "Stability" has ensured that Radical Islam had a purpose and a struggle. Without this status quo "stability," our "allies" are scrambling and Islamic Radicals are desperate and lashing out. Islam as a mundane organizing tool is failing all over the world and unfamiliarity scares them.
I think we know all this.

GySgt said:
Well, that is a sweet sentiment....but I didn't say "Muslim" heartland. I said "Arab" heartland. The "Arab" heartland is the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. It is the birth place of Islam. If you are determined to discuss these things with me, at least try to keep up.
The Muslim heartland is everywhere. So trying to swat Muslim flies in Iraq is doing nothing whatsover to make the UK safe. It's making the Muslim flies in our country angry & so some turn into London tube & plane bombers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Symmetrical_Argument
I can only say that for a huge a huge Soviet army, Afganistan became their Vietnam, so what's different now ?

GySgt said:
We are not trying to rule Iraqis. We merely toppled a thorn in our side and a ruthless dictator. We are currently supporting the vast majority in the security of their newly elected government. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.
The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is sophomoric. It's very Rambo.
I said Afganistan, not Iraq. Though you could compare Iraq to Nam also.
 
Bush and Condi over and over and over again were heard saying that we must support "the fragile democracy in Lebanon"! Why? Why must we support the Lebanon president when he says things like:

Go to www.foxnews.com
Click Videos
Click World
Click the video that says: Leader's Angry!

Again, if this is the best Bush has on the WOT and leaders who support terrorist organizations, then it's time for a change!
 
As long as this guy was talking TRUE Democracy and a break from Syrian and Iranian Influence, there was good reason to stick with him.....

but this latest Israeli-Hezbollah conflict exposed him for what he is/was, got him to strike his true colors. As I have beleived all along, Lebanon is a puppet state for Syria and lebanon. The U.N. sat back and watched the assassinations of several of their keyleaders who fought this, then sat back and watched Iran militarize a terrorists group to the point it became more powerful than Lebanon's military and took over the country.

The news said it right this morning -- The Lebonese army will flow troops into Southern lebanon today because Hezbollah has given them the 'green light' to do so, but the army will do nothing to impede/disarm Hezbollah. Also, Hezbollah would rather have a 'stabilizing' force of Lebonese in southern Lebanon than from any other country, especially a country who just might be willing to use force against Hezbollah!
 
Symmetrical_Argument said:
What ?!
The easiest & most methodcal & orderly way to deal with points is separately & one at a time.

Yet, you completely glossed over point number 3. Like I said...picking the points out that you can argue while dismissing the points you can't usually means a re-evaluation of your sentiments.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
I didn't say Iraq was secular. You did. I said it was riddled with religion.

True. But this was after you said...

"But Iraq was just a dictatorship with thugs loyal to Saddam & they'd probably be shot if they were loyal to anyone else like Al Queda."

I thought this implied secularism from the rest of the Middle East.


I see you glossed over points 1 and 2....

Symmetrical_Argument said:
3) As per a typical US government failure to act on intelligence pre 911 & then accept is was not acted on.

I guess this is supposed to mean something with the corrolation of the failures in the Middle East. Perhaps we will begin seeing Christian Radical terrorist organizations now because of an intel botch. Your agenda is clear. You are not here to discuss, learn, or teach. You are merely here to bash America. It is obvious from the way you keep throwing insult in where it does not belong. "Sophomoric."

Symmetrical_Argument said:
4) What's wrong with that ?

Well, I'll tell you. When a civilization sees his clan or sect as a trumping organization above the local government or national interests, the civilization will always be on a path towards failure. In these types of civilizations..people do not vote for the best man...they vote for their uncle or their fellow religious sect. For example...

In these types of civilizations, two men can be running for office - one a Gandhi-esque figure and one a Saddam figure. The Sunni will not vote for the Gandhi-esque figure, because the Saddam figure is Sunni.

..For further explanation on the damage such a civilization will sustain from this basic trumping organization, study a little about Pakistan. I can provide you a post if you would like a brief summation.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
5) Middle America ????

Hardly. Stick to the subject and try not ot avert into alternative exonerations. Middle America does not conduct it's government by the rule of the Bible. Middle America does not oppress the masses based on a single dogmatic religion and call it the will of "God."

Symmetrical_Argument said:
6) One of the latest liquid bomber terrorists being investigated is a brillaint maths lecturer. There are plenty of educated academic religious idiots. I know , I work with some of them. It's not education that is needed. It's less religion that's needed

Wrong. Osama Bin Ladden is educated. This is hardly the point. The terrorists underneath him that hang on his every word and the millions of Radicals that have been convinced that his form of Islam is of the purest kind...is uneducated. They are raised in religious zealousy with the virtually complete absence of formal education. Those terrorists that have formal education are merely the charismatic leaders that sieze all this hatred and ignorance and focus it. Merely declaring that less religion is needed accomplishes nothing without addressing the lack of education and free thought. History is full of this. For further understanding, study European Christianity in the early 16th century.

What good is religious fanaticism in a civilization that studies science and rational thought?

Symmetrical_Argument said:
7) There's plenty of that attitude in the west.

And again...hardly anything to do with the failures in the Middle East. Plenty of attitude about not wanting to go to work has nothing to do with an entire civilization that suffers from mass percentages of un-employment...

Regional unemployment for ages 15-35 = 40%…and growing.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
Iraq was different under Saddam compared to other arab countries in the extreme degree of his dictatorship.

Which again implies that you are looking to use "secularism" as a means to seperate Iraq from the entire Middle East. Taking out a dictator that abuses his people is easy. Going into a country where Radicalism is the source of the government and societal failures is something else. We will do nothing favorable by doing this.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
I think we know all this.

Yet with regards to fear, you claimed...

"I hadn't noticed. It seems to have made them hell bent on a fight."

Symmetrical_Argument said:
The Muslim heartland is everywhere. So trying to swat Muslim flies in Iraq - (Hello pobinr, robin, etc..) is doing nothing whatsover to make the UK safe. It's making the Muslim flies in our country angry & so some turn into London tube & plane bombers.

So the fear of antagonizing them trumps facing them? The Muslim flies in your country is a matter of concern for your police force. At the heart of Muslim rage is the Saudi disease. It is the influence that billions of petro dollars have payed for and is spreading.

If Al-Queda dropped a flew planes on London on 9/11, I dare say you would be whining about "Muslim flies" as we face down this civilization. Al-Queda is merely a symptom..as is your London bombers.

Symmetrical_Argument said:
I said Afganistan, not Iraq. Though you could compare Iraq to Nam also.

I know you "typed" Afghanistan. It was just unclear what you meant. So am I now to assume that you don't get what is going on in Afghanistan also? The comparisons of Iraq and Afghnaistan to Vietnam is purely generic academics. Where it matters..they are not comparable.
 
Last edited:
picking the points out that you can argue while dismissing the points you can't usually means a re-evaluation of your sentiments.

You do it all the time; don't pull that phony baloney that you don't; tell me smart one is this nation a Democracy or a Republic? :shock:
 
Middle America does not conduct it's government by the rule of the Bible. Middle America does not oppress the masses based on a single dogmatic religion and call it the will of "God."

Thank you.

Middle America also does not mass produce young men that are willing to strap on bomb vests, hi jack jet liners, and intentionally target innocent civilians in the name of their God.

to compare Americas religious teachings and followings to anything like what is going on with regards to islam in the middle east is downright ludicrous.
 
Navy Seal Patriot said:
You do it all the time; don't pull that phony baloney that you don't; tell me smart one is this nation a Democracy or a Republic? :shock:


.......I don't even know you and I never dismiss the points that would weaken my arguments for favor of sticking to my argument. I guess calling me "smart one" was some attempt to satisfy your inferiority complex. If you see me as "smart" then why would you choose to make your very first post to me a sarcastic one?

But as to your question...I don't care either way. Arguments are made for both. We vote Democratically, but we very much resemble a Republic. Any other off topic questions you wish to blurt out?
 
Flashback: WW2. Hitler wrote in Mein Kumpf (sorry - spelling) that he was not ready to take military action when he moved his Army into the Rhine Land, the buffer zone set up at the end of WW1. He said if the french would have voiced or shown any backbone and resisted, he would have pulled out immediately. He said he took France's reaction of giving in to Hitler's move as wakness and a sign that France would put up no resistance for its own survival, that they would rather roll over and be taken rather than fight.

Actually for your information My Kampf was written in 1925, during A Hitler stay in prison. Can you explain to us how he could have written about something that happened 14 years later? Now as for France showing no back bones against Hitler as you put it, well you badly need some history lesson. Only TWO countries declared war on Germany in 1939 and it was England and France. And if you had any knowledge of history you would also know that England wouldn't have gone to war against Germany if France wouldn't have jumped in. Now shortly after that, FOUR more countries followed. Canada sept 10, South Africa sept 6, New Zealand and Australia. And what ever happen to the USA? Well the USA declared itself neutral. read the Neutrality Acts of 1935. so it seems that the good old USA has invented the term "good ally"?! But hey don't worry about it, the Fox news channel will rewrite history to make you feel good and righteous.

........."...I must, on behalf of my Government, remind you for the last time of the heavy responsibility assumed by the Government of the Reich by entering, without a declaration of war, into hostilities against Poland and in not acting upon the suggestion made by the Governments of the French Republic and of His Britannic Majesty to suspend all aggressive action against Poland and to declare itself ready to withdraw its forces promptly from Polish territory.
I have the painful duty to notify you that as from today, September 3, at 5 p.m., the French Government will find itself obliged to fulfill the obligations that France has contracted towards Poland, and which are known to the German Government."

Ambassador Robert Coulondre to German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop
September 3, 1939
 
......."Flashback: WW2. Hitler wrote in Mein Kumpf (sorry - spelling) that he was not ready to take military action when he moved his Army into the Rhine Land, the buffer zone set up at the end of WW1. He said if the french would have voiced or shown any backbone and resisted, he would have pulled out immediately. He said he took France's reaction of giving in to Hitler's move as wakness and a sign that France would put up no resistance for its own survival, that they would rather roll over and be taken rather than fight."............................


also for your information, Germany declared war on the US on the December 11 1941, few days after Pearl Harbor and over two years after the start of WW2.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom